2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the fact that the Defendant has been subject to punishment several times of violent crimes, the degree of assault is not less than that of the victim, and the Defendant did not agree with the victim, the lower court’s punishment seems somewhat unfasible, but it is difficult to view that it goes beyond the reasonable bounds of its discretion, so that it can be deemed that the Defendant is less light.

In the trial, new sentencing data against the defendant was not submitted.

Therefore, the prosecutor's sentencing order is not accepted.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.